Patent Law Updates

Featured Expert Legal Commentary

Forest Group v. Bon Tool: Upping the Incentives for False Marking Claims

By Yuri Mikulka and Jeffrey J. Zuber of Zuber & Taillieu LLP

The Federal Circuit has determined that the maximum fine for violation of the federal false marking statute should be applied on a per article basis, rather than the “per decision” basis applied by a majority of district courts in the past. In The Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Co.,… More...

More Patent Law Updates

Sort by:
Page 1 of 3 of Patent Law Commentaries
 1 2 3 >

Prometheus Labs v. Mayo: Preserving Patentability of Medical Diagnostics

Prometheus Labs, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs.  |  February 19, 2010

The Federal Circuit has preserved patent-eligibility for medical diagnostics testing, finding that the administration of drugs and determination of resulting chemical levels can meet the machine-or-transformation test set forth in In re Bilski. In Prometheus Labs, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., More...

Exergen v. Wal-Mart: Raising the Pleading Requirement for Inequitable Conduct

Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc.  |  December 7, 2009

The Federal Circuit has established a heightened pleading requirement for claims of inequitable conduct, requiring more than “a mere showing that art or information having some degree of materiality was not disclosed.” In Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 575 F.3d 1312, 1331 (Fed. Cir. More...

Cardiac Pacemakers v. St. Jude: Section 271(f) Does Not Apply to Method Claims

Cardiac Pacemakers Inc. v. St. Jude Medical Inc.  |  October 2, 2009

Following the lead of the U.S. Supreme Court in its 2007 Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp. decision, the Federal Circuit ruled that 35 U.S.C. Section 217(f) is not applicable to method claims. In Cardiac Pacemakers, the Court expressly overruled its own previous controversial decision in Union Carbide, More...

Abbott Labs v. Sandoz: Defining Infringement for Product-by-Process Claims

Abbott Labs v. Sandoz  |  July 13, 2009

The Federal Circuit has resolved prior inconsistencies in its case law and established a bright line rule to define infringement in product-by-process claims, holding that such infringement requires practice of the claimed process by the alleged infringer. In Abbott Labs v. Sandoz, 566 F.3d 1282 More...

In re Kubin: Extending “Obvious to Try” to cDNA Sequence Patents

In re Kubin  |  June 17, 2009

The Federal Circuit court applied the “obvious to try” test from KSR International v. Teleflex Inc. to biotechnology patent applications, and essentially eviscerated the obviousness standard once applied to biotech patents by the Federal Circuit in In re Deuel. While the decision in In re Kubin More...

In re Ferguson: Affirming Bilski’s Machine-or-Transformation Test

In re Ferguson  |  May 26, 2009

In one of the first post-Bilski decisions by a Federal Circuit panel, the court confirmed the Bilski holding that business methods do not constitute patentable processes if they fail the machine-or-transformation test. Specifically, in In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359 (Fed Cir. 2009), the Court held More...

Tafas v. Doll: Limits on Continuations Invalid; Other Claim Limits May Be OK

Tafas v. Doll  |  May 18, 2009

The Federal Circuit largely upheld rules promulgated by the PTO to help relieve its enormous backlog of patent applications. The district court had determined that the rules were substantive and therefore beyond the PTO’s legal authority. In Tafas v. Doll, 559 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009), a split More...

Rothman v. Target: Deferring to Jury Finding of Obviousness, But Not of Inequitable Conduct

Rothman v. Target Corp.  |  May 12, 2009

In Rothman v. Target Corp., 556 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Federal Circuit upheld a district court’s refusal to set aside a jury finding that the plaintiff’s patent was invalid due to obviousness, but reversed the trial court on its finding of inequitable conduct by the prosecuting More...

Boston Scientific v. Cordis: Obviousness from Two Separate Embodiments

Boston Scientific Scimed v. Cordis Corp.  |  April 2, 2009

In Boston Scientific v. Cordis, 554 F.3d 982 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned both the PTO Examiner and the district court trial jury in invalidating Boston Scientific’s patent claims due to invalidity. Specifically, the appellate court determined that More...

Recent Decisions Alter Venue Strategy In Eastern District of Texas Patent Litigation

In re Volkswagen of America Inc./In re TS Tech USA Corp.  |  March 24, 2009

In the wake of two recent federal appeals cases -- In re Volkswagen of America Inc., 545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) and In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008) – the Eastern District of Texas has lost some of its steam as the most notable “rocket docket” of patent infringement More...

Page 1 of 3 of Patent Law Commentaries
 1 2 3 >
Advertise with LawUpdates.com

Companies Mentioned

Patent Law

The following companies are mentioned in Patent Law Updates:

Mylan Pharmaceutical, Inc.

Ranbaxy, Inc.

Mylan Laboratories, Inc.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

Stryker Sales Corp.

Abbott Laboratories

Stryker Orthopaedics

Sandoz, Inc.

Stryker Corp.

Sandoz GMBH

Howmedica Osteonics Corp.

Astellas Pharma, Inc.

Acumed, LLC

Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd.

Quanta Computer, Inc.

Ranbaxy Laboratories, Ltd.

LG Electronics, Inc.

Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc.

Cohesive Technologies, Inc.

Par Pharmaceutical

Waters Corp.

Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc.

Swisa, Inc.

Guidant Sales Corp.

Egyptian Goddess, Inc.

Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC

Dror Swisa

St. Jude Medical, Inc.

Pacesetter, Inc.

Johnson & Johnson, Inc.

Exergen Corp.

Cordis Corp.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.

Hana Microelectronics Co., Ltd.

Boston Scientific Corp.

CVS Corp.

Target Corp.

Daiwa Products, Inc.

Sears Holding Corp.

S.A.A.T. Systems Application of Advanced Technology, Ltd.

Motherswear International, Redcats USA, L.P. d.b.a. Lane Bryant Catalog

Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.

Leading Lady, Macy’s Department, Inc.

Mayo Collaborative Services d.b.a. Mayo Medical Laboratories

Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc.

Mayo Clinic Rochester

K-Mart Corp.

Shanghai Honest Tool Co., Inc.

J.C. Penney Company, Inc.

Additional Resources

Patent Law